them and bring them safely to berth. I believe this is the only American pilots association which assisted in the navigation of salt-water vessels last year. We have since spent quite a bit of time, money and effort getting ready to handle this pilotage during 1960. Naturally, we have an interest in the above legislation. There are two proposals now under consideration. The first H.R. 57, the Bonner bill, would require pilots aboard ship at all times during navigation on the Great Lakes. The second, S. 3019, would provide certain minimum standards of personnel and equipment for the issuance of a certificate which would permit a vessel to sail on the open waters and then require that pilots be taken aboard to assist and direct that vessel through certain areas of difficult navigation. Together with the State Department, Coast Guard, the Department of Commerce, and a number of others, we are in support of S. 3019. It is our opinion that enactment of the Bonner bill would: (1) Put the American pilot associations out of business. (2) Raise a cost barrier which would impair the usage of the St. Lawrence Seaway. without making any significant contribution to the safety of navigation on the Great Lakes. Attending the hearings on S. 3019 held by your committee on February 23, I was interested and amused at the position taken by opponents of this measure. Very carefully and in each of a series of speeches the point was made that a pilot or the pilot should be aboard the vessel at all times. Passed under the guise of a reasonable safety measure, this legislation would result either in the use of one pilot suffering from excessive fatigue or would require the hiring of three pilots on a full-time basis on every ship entering the Great Lakes, in order that one of them would be on duty at all times. Since the vessel would arrive at Montreal with a full complement of officers, this would require additional pay ($42.50 per day minimum) quarters and provisions for three additional officers who would stay aboard during the entire Great Lakes voyage, who would not tend watch or otherwise serve the vessel, and none of whom would be local experts on the difficult stretches of navigation between Montreal and Duluth. By contrast, the provisions of S. 3019 would require expert pilots trained and certified for particular and difficult stretches who would make a career of assisting salt water vessels through those areas requiring specialized knowledge. Misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "pilot" created a great deal of confusion at the hearing. On the Great Lakes, under current Coast Guard regulations, each individual holding papers as a mate becomes ex officio and without any thorough inquiry into his qualifications, a “pilot.” Webster's International Dictionary (2d ed., 1954) defines a "pilot" as "a person duly qualified and usually licensed to conduct vessels into and out of a port or in certain waters, often for fixed fees." Certainly, a generally licensed master entrusted by the owner with responsibility for navigation all over the world-through the Caribbean Sea, Denmark Straits, Baltic Sea, the English Channel, Cape Horn, the Malacca Straits, the Coast of Africa, and the Mediterranean Sea-should be competent to handle this vessel in the open waters of the Great Lakes. In rivers, locks, and difficult harbors this captain should receive the same assistance in our country as he receives abroad; namely, he should take aboard a licensed pilot, trained and specialized in changing conditions of the particular, limited area for which he is certified, and who should leave the vessel when the difficult part of the voyage is completed. It is a matter of pride to us that our requirements for the employment of a pilot are substantially higher than the Coast Guard standard for the issuance of a pilot's license, and that while some vessels did get into trouble in restricted waters adjoining Lake Superior, not one of these incidents occurred when a pilot of this association was in charge of the vessel. At If there is any further information you would like to have, or if the hearing on S. 3019 will be reopened for additional testimony, please let us know. your convenience we would like to be heard. Yours very truly, CONRAD M. FREDIN. Re S. 3019, Great Lakes pilotage. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, MCCREARY, HINSLEA & RAY, Cleveland, Ohio, February 26, 1960. Chairman, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: At the hearings held last Tuesday and Wednesday on S. 3019, I called to the attention of Senator Lausche, who was conducting the hearings, and staff member, Mr. Bourbon, a statement that was not exactly factual in that it was stated that all enrolled vessels of the Great Lakes must have a complement of officers holding Coast Guard pilot licenses. I spoke to the Commandant about it and he agreed that diesel tugs do not require licensed officers or pilots. The Commandant, I understand, raised the question with the State Department and they are agreeable to making a few changes in their statement. This led me to believe that at some time in the future, when most of us are gone, someone might be claiming that this act did provide for licensing requirements for diesel tugs. I informed the Great Lakes Towing Co., who are our regular clients, of this possibility and they are submitting a statement requesting an amendment, to which I hope the committee will give favorable consideration and adopt the same. Respectfully yours, LEE C. HINSLEA. STATEMENT OF THE GREAT LAKES TOWING CO., CLEVELAND, OHIO, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO S. 3019 The Great Lakes Towing Co. operates 53 Great Lakes tugs, 46 of which are diesel-powered and 7 are steam-powered. All but two of the tugs operate as harbor tugs in all principal ports of the Great Lakes and are all under 100 gross tons. There are two larger tugs, one of 194 gross tons and the other of 198 gross tons, which are used for salvage work and towage on the open waters of the Great Lakes. All of the company's tugs are vessels of the United States, licensed and enrolled for navigation on the Great Lakes. This, we might point out, is the same type of documentation that is given to all of the Great Lakes vessels. Although there are Coast Guard licensing requirements for personnel on Great Lakes steam tugs, there is no statute or regulation requiring licensed pilots or other licensed personnel on board the company's diesel tugs. This also applies to other companies operating diesel tugs on the Great Lakes, as well as Atlantic coast diesel tugs and Mississippi River diesel tugs which come to the Great Lakes. It is the company's understanding that a bill S. 3019 has been introduced to establish pilotage requirements for ocean vessels (American registry and foreign vessels) operating from ocean routes into the Great Lakes and the problems connected therewith; that the bill is not intended to regulate vessels which are enrolled for coastwise trade on the Great Lakes nor regulate Canadian vessels engaged in Great Lakes trade. Nevertheless, we believe some question could conceivably arise regarding the applicability of this proposed legislation to the operation of this company's and other companies' diesel tugs. At a hearing held before your committee on February 23 and 24, 1960, we have been advised that the State Department, in presenting its statement supporting the bill, made the following statement: "The term 'registered vessel of the United States' applies to American vessels engaged in foreign trade, as distinguished from vessels proceeding under ‘enrollment' when engaged in domestic trade between U.S. ports. Enrollment is also permitted under existing law for U.S. vessels engaged in foreign trade between United States and Canadian ports on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. Any enrolled vessel navigating U.S. waters of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River must have a complement of officers holding Coast Guard pilot licenses for those waters." We understand that when pointed out that the last sentence was not exactly factual, a change is to be made something along the following lines: "With a few exceptions, enrolled vessels navigating U.S. waters of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River must have a complement of officers holding Coast Guard pilot licenses for those waters." Under section 9, subsection (b) of S. 3019, it is provided that nothing in this act shall apply to any vessel of the United States which, in its navigation of waters to which the act is applicable, is required by any other act to have in its service and on board pilots or other navigating officers licensed by the United States for such waters. The effect of this provision would be to exclude U.S. vessels of the "laker" category from the coverage of the act which are now required by other laws to be manned by personnel who are licensed by the Coast Guard. It would also exclude the company's steam tugs because of the licensing requirements currently in effect for such tugs. However, the diesel tugs of this company and others trading on the Great Lakes would not be clearly excluded inasmuch as there are no licensing provisions in effect for their personnel. In prior legislative proposals introduced before the Senate as S. 2096 and in the House as H.R. 7515 and H.R. 57, all vessels of less than 300 gross tons were excluded. This exclusion does not appear in S. 3019. From discussions of this problem with the Commandant of the Coast Guard and representatives of other interested departments of our Government, it is our understanding that no changes were contemplated in the present requirements for Great Lakes tugs, either steam or diesel. Therefore, in order to prevent any wrongful interpretation in the future, it is requested that the following amendment be added to section 9: "Nothing in this act shall be construed as affecting any statutory requirement for licensed pilots on vessels of less than 300 gross tons." This addition would certainly clarify the legislation and is identical to the exclusion which appeared in previously proposed legislation and would seem to have no objection from the Commandant of the Coast Guard or other executive departments. Respectfully submitted. THE GREAT LAKES TOWING CO., By LAURENCE C. TURNER. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & Dock Co., Hon. WARREN MAGNUSON, Chairman, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: We enclose a statement which we wish to put in the record of the hearings of your committee on S. 3019. This company is much concerned that the bill as currently proposed without the 300-gross-ton exclusion which was included in earlier proposed bills might lead to severe and costly manning hardships on Great Lakes diesel tugs, some of which are as small as 17 gross tons, because by present statute they are not required to carry licensed pilots or other licensed personnel. We strongly urge the amendment which we propose in our statement. E. K. LYDON, President. STATEMENT OF THE GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK Co., CHICAGO, ILL., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO S. 3019 The Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. currently operates on the Great Lakes 19 tugs, all but 1 of which are under 300 gross tons. All are vessels of the United States, licensed and enrolled for navigation on the Great Lakes under the same type of documentation that is given to all of the Great Lakes vessels. These tugs are engaged in the marine construction and dredging business conducted by this company as work may be available at various locations upon the Great Lakes, their connecting and tributary waters. There is no statute or regulation requiring licensed pilots or other licensed personnel on board these diesel tugs. It is the company's understanding that a bill S. 3019 has been introduced to establish pilotage requirements for ocean vessels (American registry and foreign vessels) operating from ocean routes into the Great Lakes and the problems connected therewith; that the bill is not intended to regulate vessels which are en rolled for coastwise trade on the Great Lakes nor regulate Canadian vessels engaged in Great Lakes trade. Nevertheless, we believe some question could conceivably arise regarding the applicability of this proposed legislation to the operation of this company's and other companies' diesel tugs. At a hearing held before your committee on February 23 and 24, 1960, we have been advised that the State Department, in presenting its statement supporting the bill, made the following statement: "The term 'registered vessel of the United States' applies to American vessels engaged in foreign trade, as distinguished from vessels proceeding under 'enrollment' when engaged in domestic trade between U.S. ports. Enrollment is also permitted under existing law for U.S. vessels engaged in foreign trade between United States and Canadian ports on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. Any enrolled vessel navigating U.S. waters of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River must have a complement of officers holding Coast Guard pilot licenses for those waters." We understand that when pointed out that the last sentence was not exactly factual, a change is to be made something along the following lines: "With a few exceptions, enrolled vessels navigating U.S. waters of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River must have a complement of officers holding Coast Guard pilot licenses for those waters." Under section 9, subsection (b) of S. 3019, it is provided that nothing in this act shall apply to any vessel of the United States which, in its navigation of waters to which the act is applicable, is required by any other act to have in its service and on board pilots or other navigating officers licensed by the United States for such waters. The effect of this provision would be to exclude U.S. vessels of the "laker" category from the coverage of the act which are now required by other laws to be manned by personnel who are licensed by the Coast Guard. However, the diesel tugs of this company and others trading on the Great Lakes would not be clearly excluded inasmuch as there are no licensing provisions in effect for their personnel. In prior legislative proposals introduced before the Senate as S. 2096 and in the House as H.R. 7515 and H.R. 57, all vessels of less than 300 gross tons were excluded. This exclusion does not appear in S. 3019. From discussions of this problem with the Commandant of the Coast Guard and representatives of other interested departments of our Government, it is our understanding that no changes were contemplated in the present requirements for Great Lakes tugs, either steam or diesel. Therefore, in order to prevent any wrongful interpretation in the future, it is requested that the following amendment be added to section 9: "Nothing in this act shall be construed as affecting any statutory requirement for licensed pilots on vessels of less than 300 gross tons." This addition would certainly clairfy the legislation and is identical to the exclusion which appeared in previously proposed legislation and would seem to have no objection from the Commandant of the Coast Guard or other executive departments. Respectfully submitted. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK Co., By E. K. LYDON, President. BUFFALO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, February 25, 1960. Hon WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: We enclose our policy statement on the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960. We are convinced that enactment of this bill (S. 3019) is of great importance to business, industry and shipping interests of the western New York area. Your comments on our position will be appreciated. Sincerely, CHARLES C. FICHTNER, STATEMENT ON USE OF LICENSED PILOTS ON FOREIGN VESSELS OPERATING ON THE GREAT LAKES (S. 3019), BY BUFFALO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE The Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960 as set forth in S. 3019 is a far more realistic measure than the bills which have been introduced in previous sessions of the Congress. We endorse the prompt enactment of this bill. If St. Lawrence-Great Lakes Seaway commerce is to prosper, it is essential that all unnecessary restrictions and costly regulations be eliminated in order that profitable operations may be carried on while the vast inland population of the United States is efficiently and economically served by the new waterway. The Buffalo Chamber of Commerce urged modification of the bills introduced in 1958 and 1959 in the belief that they were unduly severe and very costly in requiring that United States or Canadian pilots be used on foreign vessels during their entire operation in Great Lakes waters, connecting channels and tributary waters. Passage of the present proposal limiting United States or Canadian pilotage requirements to dangerous sections of lake and seaway waters will recognize the capability of qualified masters of foreign-flag ships and will remove the potential danger of enactment of conflicting legislation by separate States bordering the Great Lakes. We believe that every effort should be made to reduce costs and speed up traffic on this important waterway. CLEVELAND, OHIO, March 7, 1960. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, U.S. Senate Building, Washington, D.C.: We recommend passage of bill S. 3019 covering pilotage on the Great Lakes. JAS R. CARMAN, Chairman, Lakes Overseas Vessel Agents Committee, Cleveland, Ohio. CLEVELAND, ОHIо, March 7, 1960. CHAIRMAN, INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE COMMITTEE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Earnestly request support S. 3019 concerning safe navigation on Great Lakes. CLEVELAND WORLD TRADE ASSOCIATION. THE CLEVELAND TRENCHER CO., CHAIRMAN, SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: We are greatly interested in any legislation concerning the Great Lakes. We hereby request passage of compromise bill S. 3019. Thanking you for your consideration, we remain, Very truly yours, E. J. KYSELA, Export Manager. THE ARCO Co., Cleveland, Ohio, March 9, 1960. Hon. W. G. MAGNUSON, Representative WILLIAM BONNER, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: We recommend the passage of bill S. 3019 concerning pilotage on the Great Lakes. Sincerely yours, T. N. RADU, Foreign Sales Manager. |